However, still there were a number of figures of the OT and Second Temple Judaism who were designated as “prophet איִבָנ”. In fact, the term ‘prophet’ covers a fairly broad spectrum of people in their various ranges of activities. They can be categorized in terms of power relation.
3.2.3.1. Prophets in the hierocratic order
At the one end were the ordinary prophets, who had no significant effect on the current empire. They were figures who prophesied on a regular basis. Their task could be summarized as (1) a transmission of the divine will to the current covenantal community. This was often associated with the interpretation of Scripture. (2) Sometimes a prediction of future event was given as part of the transmission of divine will (i.e. 1Kgs. 11:29-39; 13:2, 21-22, 32; 14:6-16; 21:36, 42). It is unlikely that ordinary prophets predicted the future regularly. Yet in some instances or special occasions they certainly did do so, and prediction of the future was regarded as an integral part of prophets’ task (cf. Deut. 18:22). (3) In addition, as for the OT prophets, their prophetic message often incurred the fury of the Israelites (Jer. 37:6-38:28; 1Kgs. 22:17-28; 2Chr. 24:20-22). (4) The NT writers gave the OT prophets a role in the prophecy of a messianic figure to come, later identified in the NT perspective of promise/prophecy and fulfilment with Jesus (Acts 7:52).
As for (1) and (2), the tasks of prophets overlapped with those of priests. (1) A transmission of the divine will, including the reading and interpreting scriptures, was one of the original tasks of priests. And High priests also (2) predicted the future using Urim and Thummim.
One significant difference was that prophets did not need any ascribed status. High priests must come out of Zadok’s line, Kings out of David’s. Considering this feature, a prophet can be understood as a divine mediator, but not necessarily from a specific ancestry.
46
To be sure, the tasks of ordinary prophets were not equivalent to those of high priests. Simply stated, they neither replaced nor duplicated high priests. Like monarchs, ordinary prophets did not offer sacrifices (cf. Num. 16). The exclusive authority of high priests to perform sacrifices was generally recognized. Ordinary prophets did their tasks in the hierocratic order, under the ideological provisions of the high priests.
3.2.3.2. The prophet par excellence
What makes matters more complicated is that certain prophets outperformed other ordinary prophets. A distinction between ordinary prophets and a prophet par excellence was seemingly made in the OT itself (Deut. 18:15-19; 34:10-12; 2Kgs. 2:9, 15), as well as in Second Temple Judaism. Josephus remarked that Moses had none to equal him (Feldman 2006:215); Philo identified Moses as the prophet par excellence (Levision 2006:196, 206). Presumably, there was an ideological hierarchy among prophetic figures in Judaism.
(1) Moses, a prototype of the prophet par excellence
Moses was the prophet par excellence who took both the roles of a prophet and a high priest. He anointed and sanctified Aaron (Lev. 8:12-13); and ordained Aaron as the first high priest. And Moses conducted offerings including the sin offering (Lev. 8:14) and burnt offering (Lev. 8:18). These were, without doubt, the tasks of high priests. His superior status as God’s mediator was proven in comparison to an ordinary prophet, such as Miriam, and a high priest, Aaron (Num. 12). Moses even had a legislative authority (Jassen 2008:308). Thus, it is not surprising that Moses was depicted as a King, a High priest and a prophet by Philo.
Moses’ superiority as a divine mediator was caused by (1) his intimate relationship with God whom he faced at Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:20; 20:20-21; 24:15-28); and (2) his receiving of the Torah at Sinai. These two factors were, in fact, interlocking. His receipt of Torah on Mount Sinai facing God guaranteed his status as the prophet par excellence (Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 18:15-22; 34:10-12). His virtue became the prototype of those who follow as in the phrase “prophets like Moses”.
47
(2) The prophet like Moses: an intertextual connection and figuration
Samuel and Elijah/Elisha also can be identified as prophets par excellence who performed the role of priests. As for Elisha, he was called “the holy one of God”, a title that the OT reserves otherwise for the high priest Aaron (Poirier 2007: 360; cf. 2Kgs. 4:9; Ps. 106:16; Num. 16:7).
An intertextual connection between Moses, Samuel16 and Elijah seems to be obvious. The intertextual connection between Moses, Samuel and Elijah is best revealed in the scenes of the making and renewal of the Covenant: (1) the Sinai Covenant (Ex. 19, 24) and (2) the renewal of the Covenant at Moab (Deut. 29-33); (3) Samuel’s renewal of the Covenant at Mizpah (1Sam. 7:2-12) and (4) Gilgal (1Sam. 11:15-12:25); (5) Elijah’s renewal of the Covenant at Mount Carmel (1Kgs. 18:20-46). The Israelites were summoned and asked to choose between God and idols. Blessings and curses were declared, except at Carmel (5). All the scenes were accompanied by supernatural signs like thunder, cloud and rain, except at Moab (2). The similarity between (3) and (5) is apparent: Samuel and Elijah poured out water; they offered a burnt offering; Israel defeated the enemy of God; supernatural signs indicated God’s intervention.
In fact, Samuel and Elijah/Elisha performed their ministry as prophets par excellence following their precedent, Moses. They were depicted like Moses; Samuel and Elijah were the prophets like Moses.
(3) The prophet par excellence as an alternative [high] priest
Such extraordinary prophets emerged when Israel as a whole had been so corrupted that they broke the Covenant of God (1Kgs. 19:10, 14; cf. 1Sam. 7:3). This is often epitomised in the OT by the corruption of the [high] priests (1Sam. 2:11-17). In this perspective, the prophets par excellence can be classified as “the alternative [high] priests”. The warning of the man of God to Eli the priest (1Sam. 2:35-36) supports this view. “A faithful priest” whom God will raise up in this passage (1Sam. 2:35) points primarily to Samuel in the narrative. He was not from priestly ancestry, yet
16
Incidentally, only Luke, with the author of the letter to Hebrews, refers to Samuel among NT writers (Acts 3:24, 13:20; Hebr 11:32).
48
performed as a [high] priest. Thus the prophet par excellence or the prophet like Moses was perceived as an alternative high priest.
Furthermore, the terms “לוֹ ֔דָגַה ןֵ֣ הֹּכַה ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας high priest (2Kgs. 12:11[=12:10])”, “ שׁא ֹּ֔רָה ןֵ֣ הֹּכ τὸν [Σαραιαν] ἱερέα τὸν πρῶτον chief priest (2Kgs. 25:18)” were not used in the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch, Aaron and his successors were called as simply “Levitical” (Deut.17:9), or “anointed” (Lev. 4:3) priests. In fact, the terms, high priest and chief priest, emerged in association with the cult of the central Temple later in the period of Judah. However, Aaron (and Zadok) and their successors’ superior status to other priests was widely recognized in Second Temple Judaism: Aaron was even called “chief priest” (Ezra 7:5). In fact, high priests’ exclusive status in Second Temple Judaism was guaranteed by their ancestry. In spite of the risk of anachronism, the term “alternative high priest” is used here to emphasize the exclusive status of Aaron’s successor.
The notion of “the prophet like Moses” as an alternative high priest made many leading figures in Second Temple Judaism present themselves like those prophets. They used to identify themselves with Moses or Elijah. The leaders of sects performed their legislative and juridical activity based on their Moses-like prophetic [and hermeneutical] status (Jassen 2008:308; Taylor 2011:102). And the Messianic figures in the millenarian movements17 called for repentance, proposed programmes for restoration, and performed miracles derived from the ministries of the prophet par excellence (Aune 1983:126-128). While the sectarian leaders of Second Temple Judaism before A.D. 70 were the “potential” alternative high priests, the Messianic figures tried to subvert the current hierocratic order within the Greco-Roman Empire as the “active” alternative high priests or Messiahs18. In Second Temple Judaism, the prophet par excellence like Moses was perceived as an alternative high priest confronting the current hierocratic empire within the Greco-Roman Empire19.
(4) The prophet par excellence in making and renewal of the Covenant
17
Theudas (ca. 44-46 CE), the unnamed Egyptian Jew (ca. 55 CE), Judas the Galilean (ca. 6-9 CE) who was the leader of Samaritan revolt can be listed as (at least potential) Messianic figures in the millenarian movement of first century Judaism (Aune 1983:126-128).
18 Of course, there were other Messianic figures who were inspired by other historical figures like David. 19 Jesus as an alternative high priest is well depicted in the NT Letter to the Hebrews.
49
It is noteworthy that the prophet par excellence as typified by Moses, Samuel and Elijah appeared at the crucial moment of making and renewal of the Covenant. Thus, they need to be understood in association with the making and renewal of the Covenant.
In fact, the giving and renewal of the Covenant was related to the making of God’s people. The giving and renewal of the covenant indicates a further new phase in the history of God’s people. In those scenes, Moses, Samuel and Elijah functioned as the mediators between God and Israel, and opened the new chapter of the progressive history of God.
Thus, the role of the prophet par excellence in those scenes was fundamentally different from that of both an ordinary prophet, and of a high priest. While a high priest functioned within the given Covenantal relationship, and an ordinary prophet functioned under the supervision of a high priest, the prophets par excellence were associated with the giving and the renewal of the Covenant itself. They had changed the whole paradigm.
3.2.3.3. A Prophetic hierarchy in Luke-Acts
In Luke’s perspective, ideologically all the people of God are prophets. By receiving the Holy Spirit, and acceptance of the guiding thereby provided, they will be able to prophesy (Acts 2).
Not only the regular prophets, but also the prophets par excellence seem to be depicted in Luke-Acts.
The minor characters, which were depicted as prophetic figures without specific explanation in Luke-Acts, correspond to the ordinary prophets. They were the ones who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They predicted future events, and transmitted the divine will to the contemporaneous community (Acts 13:1-3; 15:32; 21:10-11). Their activities were not associated with supernatural signs. Thus, they can be categorized as ordinary prophets.
50
However, the main characters of Luke-Acts, Jesus and his Apostles seem to be depicted as the prophets par excellence: Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and the Apostles in Acts. This topic will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5, which follow.
What seizes our attention is Luke’s figuration of prophetic figures outside of Christianity. Luke reserves the title ‘προφήτης’ only for the OT prophets and the Christian prophets inside the community. He labels other prophetic figures outside Christianity with various titles, μάγος Jewish magicians (Acts 8:9-10; 13:6-8), ἐξορκιστής Jewish exorcists (Acts 19:11-14), ἱκανοὶ τῶν τὰ περίεργα πραξάντων gentile magicians (Acts 19:19), πύθων a gentile fortune-teller (Acts 16:16). Considering these details, it seems that Luke has a hierarchical understanding of prophetic figures20. A prophetic hierarchy in Luke-Acts can be illustrated as follows:
(i) Prophets outside Christianity: who have not received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16) and are, in fact, false prophets (Acts 13:6).
(ii) The Christian prophets: who were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:27-28; 13:1-3); predicted future events (Acts 21:10-11); transmitted the will of God to the contextual Christian community (Acts 13:11); and comforted the community (Acts 15:32).
(iii) The prophets par excellence: who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and chosen for special missions (Luke 4:18-19; Acts 1:21-22; 9:15-16). In addition to the tasks of ordinary prophets, they were endowed with the legislative function designed to build the foundation of the community (Luke 6:20-7:49; Acts 5:1-11; 15:1-33). Supernatural signs, such as healing and raising the dead, accompanied their proclamations (Luke 4:31-41; 8:40-56; Acts 5:12-16; 9:36-42). As leaders of a new community, they can be understood as the alternative high priests (Luke 22:29-30).